Wake me when its over

All you need to know about the idiocy of the current conference realignment craze in college sports is this:  Boise State was *this* close to joining the Big East.  That's right; the school in Idaho was prepared to join a loop originally named for it's small schools in the nation's northeast corridor.   I could stop right there, but I won't.

The latest foray into a geography major's nightmare came this week when North Carolina and Virginia got overtures to join the Big Ten (which has 12 teams.  The Big 12 has 10 teams.  Keep up with me, here).  If accepted, they would join West Virginia as teams that have a majority of their conference opponents in different time zones.  Under this scenario, North Carolina would eschew conference affiliation with Duke (eight miles away) and North Carolina State (20 miles away) for epic conference clashes against the like of Iowa, Minnesota and Nebraska.  Dean Smith is rolling over in his grave!   What?  He's not dead yet?  Well---scratch that last part.

Geography and tradition matters in college sports, especially in the sport that pays the bills---football.  It is about rivalries that date back to the 19th century and remain relevant today.  It's Michigan/Ohio State, Harvard/Yale, Auburn/Alabama, Averett/Ferrum.  (may be stretching it a bit on that last one.)

I'll put it this way.  When West Virginia knocks off Baylor in an epic Big 12 tilt (remember, they're the conference with 10 teams), to whom do their fan brag?  How many West Virginia fans come into contact with Baylor grads?  How does the casual West Virginia fan get excited over matchups with Iowa State, Kansas or Texas Tech?   If North Carolina flies the coop, how many of their fans will travel to Purdue or Rutgers?   If they win, what will they say to their die-hard Demon-Deacon co-workers?

During football season, on any given Sunday at my church, there are tons of light-hearted discussions on the previous days' football follies.  Virginia Tech fans lord over Duke supporters, Tar Heels rib Wake fans; Wahoos have their way with pack-backers.  And round and round it goes.  How much of this fellowship and interest will be lost if our respective teams routinely play conference games against teams a thousand miles away?

I understand the reason for the mass movement.  I like a dollar bill as much as the next guy.  Fox/ESPN/ABC and the like are flashing major dollars for their next television deals.  Their numbers gurus (falsely) assume that certain markets will bring in more revenue.  They're packaging these deals and holding cable TV providers hostage to carry those networks on their basic tier.

There are several problems with that, but I'll just focus on a couple.  First, markets do not equal viewers.  I'm sure the Big Ten wet themselves when they secured Rutgers, thinking they would get the coveted New York market.  Uh, no.  You don't.  Rutgers athletics is not even a blip on the Big Apple's radar.  Notre Dame gets more press in the New York Times.  They won't give the Big Ten (the one with 12 teams) the New York market any more than Boston College has brought the coveted Boston Market (the demographic, not the restaurant) to the ACC.

While advertisers may crunch faulty numbers and come up with outlandish TV deals for the next cycle, this will not be sustainable.  Casual fans interest in many of the marquee teams will wane as they play more and more games against unfamiliar opponents who are far, far away.  Folks also have more on-line viewing options than ever before.  Soon, cable providers will decide they will NOT be bullied into carrying conference networks that nobody is watching.

But the biggest damage is to college football's most precious commodity: tradition.  I don't want to live in a world where Texas doesn't play Texas A&M on Thanksgiving weekend.  Where Oklahoma and Nebraska's storied rivalry is relegated to the history books.  Coming soon, no more Duke/UNC basketball; at least not from an in-conference standpoint.  Is that the way to protect your product long-term?

Wake me up when this shit is over and tell me where the Hokies land.

Gunning For Freedom

OK, folks...so here's the deal.  I'm assured by my liberal colleagues that any legislation coming down the pike on gun control in the coming weeks will deal ONLY with so-called "assault weapons."  I am touched by the number of them who assure me they have no objections to handguns, shotguns low-powered rifles, etc.  Well that's a relief!

There are several potential pratfalls, though.  Number one---the definition of an "assault weapon."  I shiver at the prospect of people who sh*t their pants every time the word "gun" is mentioned, being charged with defining something that can be fairly complicated even for a gun enthusiast.  Sorta like having a life-long vegan determine what's a good cut of veal.

Secondly, we have evidence of the efficacy of an assault weapon ban.  In short, it didn't work.  All it did was drive up the cost of assault weapons.  Shockingly, criminals were still able to obtain them---in large numbers.   If only they would follow the law!!

There's the "camel's nose under the tent" argument.  It's a cliche---but its a cliche for a reason.  It is ALWAYS the way freedoms are diminished.  Thirty years ago, the thought of requiring restaurants to even have non-smoking sections was laughable.  After they were established, the move began to outlaw smoking all together.

Regardless of your stance on smoking in restaurants, the point is this.  Freedoms are rarely taken away in one fell swoop.  They erode over time as opportunists wear away opposition like waves lapping at a shoreline.  As long as people continue to get their Bread and Circuses, they are only too willing to go along.

And finally, there's this.  Mr. President and other Statists in Washington...WE DO NOT TRUST YOU.  You have proven yourself to be yet another slimeball politician instead of a leader.  You and your ilk are all-too-ready to take advantage of a tragedy to shift more of our basic decision-making power from our homes to Washington.   Have you EVER come up with a solution that would have resulted in less government oversight?  No.  Your default setting is to make as many decisions as possible for us---while providing the requisite amount of Bread and Circuses to placate the masses.

Fortunately, there remain enough of us for whom Bread and Circuses is NOT adequate sustenance.

Letting go...

I have an odd sense of pride about the number of friends I have left of the political center. Especially when one considers how far right I am on fiscal issues. I guess its as close as I'll ever come to being considered open-minded.

As I've tooled up and down my Facebook feed the past couple of days, my Democratic friends have been conspicuous in their silence. Oh, there are a few posts about "binders" "big birds" and the latest idiot GOP candidate to open his mouth on abortion. You know, the "important" stuff. They've had nothing to say about the mounting evidence that the Benghazi controversy is more than just a Presidential miscalculation.

As a sports fan since my childhood, I know a little bit about heroes. Mine growing up were the likes of Pete Maravich, David Thompson, Rod Carew, Hank Aaron, and Kenny Stabler...just to name a few. I worshiped them as only a child could...convinced they were incapable of error, and ready to pounce on anyone who suggested otherwise.

As I grew older I realized this was not the case. It slowly dawned upon me that---yes indeed---Pistol Pete and Skywalker could miss a shot. Hammerin' Hank and Sweet Rod could strike out. The Snake could throw an interception. It was a hard epiphany for a little boy, but I accepted it and moved on. I learned that those I admired on the field of play were like all men...both good and bad, sinner and saint, success and failure. That is as it should be.

I'm worried that some otherwise well-adjusted adults seem to have trouble coming to grips with the notion that their political and social hero is also a flawed man. Barack Obama was presented to the American public as a Demigod four years ago...a man capable of ending racism, cancer, global warming, and canker sores. Many took the bait and have yet to let go, despite an avalanche of evidence to the contrary. In fact, the latest evidence suggests very pronounced "flaws" in judgement.

I say this because I want to help. I know its hard to watch heroes fall. It's hard to see someone in whom you're so emotionally invested prove that he's mortal. Its a hell of a thing to have cold reality flung in your face. "If he could just get four more years, he'll show you!!" Much like I used to say, "If Stabler had two minutes he'd win the game!!"

What I'm saying is: its OK to let go. Its alright to admit that things didn't quite work out. No one will blame you if you look at the relationship four years in and decide that you're not where you want to be.

If I could accept my hero's flaws at age ten, you can sure as hell do it as an adult.

A nation of Katrina victims

The Sunday night before Hurricane Katrina hit in 2004, I spent most of the evening gathering as much information as I could on the storm.  Even though I didn't live in the line of fire, I knew that it would be a critical story for our FM station's news the next morning.  The warning bulletins from the usually-reserved National Weather Service were scary.  "Human suffering catastrophic by modern standards" was one that stood out.  It was clear we were dealing with a monster.

We all know what happened.  The storm hit.  The flood waters rose. People died.  Looting began.  Help arrived far too late for most people's taste.

When I saw the news coverage of the mass of humanity inside and outside the Superdome, I didn't see poor, helpless black people.  I saw a group of people that had been sold a bill of goods.  I saw people who had been trained like animals to rely on the state for their most basic needs.  I saw folks who had lived their entire lives under the auspices of bureaucrats---folks who were utterly incapable of helping themselves when the government they had relied on was suddenly not there.

People feel uncomfortable talking about things like this because the overwhelming majority of the victims were black.  We MUST get past this "soft racism."  Fear of making people angry or uncomfortable might be our biggest obstacle to coming up with real solutions to our most vexing social problems.

I find it curious that some on the extreme left claim GOP policy proposals would put blacks back in "slavery."  What is blind and complete dependence on the state, if not slavery?  Is it slavery when you are incapable of providing yourself with the necessities of life without The State stepping in?  Is it charity to assist a group of people to such a degree that they have to make virtually "no" decisions about their day-to-day lives?

At the risk of sounding alarmist and melodramatic, I fear this could be what's in store for the nation at large if we're not careful.  Under the worst case scenario, I see a nation populated by people whose lives are so closely intertwined with the Government that it is impossible to determine where one ends and the other begins.  I see a once-great country with people living in the equivalent of FEMA trailers, waiting for the next check to arrive in the mail.  That nightmare also includes a populace that throws up its hands and wails when disaster strikes---and the entity on which they've relied completely is suddenly unavailable.

A blank check from a nameless and faceless entity is NOT the answer!  Engagement is the answer.  We as Americans and Christians had better get off our collective asses and work directly with those in need.  Sitting back and letting The State handle it is cowardly, counter-productive, and will end up costing us more than we could ever imagine in terms of our liberty and individual freedom.

Wither a playoff...

My two cents on a College Football Playoff...worth every penny!   Unless it includes ONLY conference champions, I'm not interested.  

Yes, I realize that the SEC routinely has two or three of the top ten teams in the nation.   But limiting it to conference champions-only would create unprecedented excitement at the various conference championship games, which would become the equivalent of national quarterfinals.
Think of this scenario.   #1 Alabama and  #2 Florida square off for the SEC Championship.   If at-large teams are allowed into the National Playoff, the SEC Championship simply becomes at battle for seeding...much like every one of the major-conference basketball tournaments.  
Say what you will about the storied Duke-North Carolina rivalry in basketball, but their regular-season and conference tournament games are essentially for bragging rights only.   Both are going to make the NCAA tournament field each year.  The only question is will they be a one-two-or-three seed.

Because of this the ACC will NEVER be able to duplicate the excitement the conference tournament generated when only the winner advanced.   The much-ballyhooed 1974 title game between N.C. State and Maryland is remembered in large part because the loser was stuck in the NIT.  Now THAT'S pressure.
Whether you realize it or not, that "winner-takes-all" scenario is what makes college football so attractive.   It's why fans like me lose sleep over regular-season games that determine if you have a shot at the Crystal Football Trophy or the Music City Bowl Trophy.   A champions-only playoff maintains that pressure while giving us an undisputed National Champion.
I know the devil is in the details.  Will it be a four-team playoff or eight teams?   If it's conference champions only, then which conferences?   What about the existing bowl games...what role will they play?   Good questions, one and all.
But any playoff that allows at-large teams to play for the ultimate title will be a pale simulacrum of the existing system, and subject us to endless hours of arguing which at-large teams get hosed.   No thanks...the basketball tournament has that market cornered.

The 'ol Razzle-Dazzle

Its hard to pick my favorite part of the movie, "Chicago." There's Catherine Zeta-Jones mincing around in a short-dress and a too-cute bob haircut, announcing plans to "rouge her knees." That was nice. There's also Queen Latifah sexily reminding me, "When You're Good to Mama, Mama's Good to You." That's always encouraging.

The part I've been thinking about the most this week is Richard Gere's God-Awful attempt at singing. Don't get me wrong---Shatner's worse. But Gere's turn on "Razzle Dazzle" is reminding me too much of the modern political landscape.

I try my best to avoid social debates. Try as I might, I just can't give a tinker's dam about what someone does in their bedroom. I cannot make myself give two spits about someone's sexual orientation. So long as children and non-consent aren't involved, go for it. I have better things to think about.

Then along comes Sandra Fluke. Her portryal as an innocent law school student who has been denied contraception by the meanies at a Jesuit school would make Billy Flynn proud. Her insertion (no pun intended) into the national political debate is little more than highly-calculated bread and circuses.

When Fluke was denied a chance to speak before a Congressional panel on insurance coverage of contraception; she instead was invited to a "democrats-only" meeting to tell her sob story. The 30-year old woman who can afford a $50,000 a year Law School education complained about not having mandatory contraception coverage into in her health care plan; administered by a Jesuit school. Razzle-Dazzle, folks.

I guess I'm more disturbed that social conservatives would take the obvious bait. Those who are monomanical about abortion and contraception are not known for political restraint. They fell for it, hook line and sinker, and vaulted this obvious plant into the national consciousness. In doing so, they have doggedly kept social issues at the forefront of this Presidential campaign, in spite of the worst economy in over a generation. Way to go, guys.

If you think Fluke is an innocent victim of mean-'ol health insurance companies who refuse to pay for condoms; then I can't help you. Consider this. Less than two miles from Fluke's apartment is a Planned Parenthood chapter. You know, the place that gives away FREE CONDOMS!?!?

This is nothing more than an orchestrated attempt to bring social issues to the front of the table over economic policies. Democrats usually score points when the debate is over condoms, abortion, and reproductive rights. Republicans often win the debate over fiscal policy.

As an aside, I'm old enough to remember when condoms were kept behind the counters and cigarettes were sold out front. How far we've come. BREAD AND CIRCUSES FOR ALL MY FRIENDS!!!"

Penn State: Where do I begin?

This whole Penn State mess is a cautionary tale to any school, church, business, government entity, or civic group. Your instinctual reaction upon hearing bad news may be to circle the wagons, handle it in-house, minimize the PR damage and hope it fades away. That may work where the "bad news" is embezzlement, drunken photos, improper language, or something similar. Those things can be fixed. It does NOT apply when you see a grown man performing a sex act on a ten-year old boy. That cannot be "fixed."

It also underscores the difference between doing what is legal and what is right. I have no doubt Joe Paterno acted within the guidelines of Pennsylvania State Law. But doing the right thing means you sometimes have to get your hands dirty---move outside of you comfort zone---think about more than the here and now. It may mean NOT kicking it down the road.

There was a teacher convicted recently in Northern Virginia on multiple counts of abusing teenage boys. It turns out he had repeated this pattern for decades---including a stint in Danville where he hosted foreign exchange students. The investigation revealed that several school districts in Maryland knew something fishy was going on; but they forced him to resign rather than be prosecuted. They legally washed their hands of him, but allowed him to continue his nefarious career. It was 25 years later before a school district finally decided to do more than just pawn the problem off of someone else.

One of the things we're going to learn soon in his Penn State fiasco is how many young boys Jerry Sandusky abused since 2002, when Paterno was told of the shower incident. Every one of those subsequent offenses could have been avoided if Paterno, the Athletic Director, the School's President, SOMEONE; had simply taken the initiative and decided that protecting children was more important than protecting the school's brand name.